User talk:Mahockenberry/sandbox

Article: Battle of Actium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Actium)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Most information was relevant to the article. There was much preliminary information that was not necessarily related tot he battle, but rather the political disintegration which led to the civil war and the battle.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Sometimes it appears as though contradicting facts or ideas about what went on at the battle are being presented. The article does attribute each account to the proper source. The article could include more information about Cleopatra's retreat, negotiations (it only mentioned that though talks were proposed, the offer was rejected), and the strategies/plans of each side.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is mostly neutral, giving the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side (the size of the army, build of the ships, etc.). Sometimes, however, the article does carry the slightest sense of thinking Octavian to be superior. This may simply be because he is the acknowledged victor of the battle, so the article must explain why. As mentioned later, this may arise from the sources referenced as well.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Very little is mentioned about Cleopatra and her role in the battle. The article mentions that she provided a fleet and offered strategic advice, and also that she maneuvered politically. However, her role is relegated to somewhat off-handed sentences upon which the author does not elaborate.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links do work.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources?

In the reference section, I noticed that the author cites a great number of biographies, as well as histories of Rome written by Plutarch and other Romans. While this may seem like a good plan due to the proximity of the sources to the subject, Plutarch in particular is notoriously biased. Roman sources are always pro-Roman, implying an inherent bias toward Octavian, the Roman victor of the battle. Biographies, surprisingly, also tend to be biased. NOt every source is biased, however, and the article does try to consult a variety.

If biased, is that bias noted?

This bias is only addressed by nature of being cited. However, the article does try to stick to the factual information that can be derived from these sources.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

In the Talk section, editors addressed the composition/organization of the article, as well as some seemingly contradictory information (some statements tend to backtrack and add seemingly different information). They also address incorporating info from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other wiki projects, as well as simple things like "B.C. and A.D." vs. "B.C.E. and C.E."

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is a "vital article" that is a part of many other projects, including: WikiProject Greece	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject Military history	(Rated C-Class) WikiProject Ancient Egypt	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject History	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject Ancient Near East	(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)